Matthew T. Murphy v. New York City Police Department and The City of New York

Background

Matthew T. Murphy, a former New York City Police Department officer, sued the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and the City of New York. His amended complaint asserted religious-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

The City required its employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Murphy alleged that he held sincerely held Christian beliefs opposing vaccination, informed the defendants of those beliefs through a religious-accommodation application, and proposed or continued alternatives including weekly testing and masking. The NYPD denied his application, and he was terminated for failing to comply with the vaccine requirement.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). At this stage, the court considered whether Murphy had pleaded facts that plausibly stated claims, rather than deciding the ultimate truth of those allegations.

Claims Against the NYPD

The court held that the NYPD is not a suable entity under the New York City Charter. Accordingly, all claims against the NYPD were dismissed. The opinion did not specify whether this dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Title VII Religious-Accommodation Claim

The court construed Murphy’s first Title VII claim as a religious-discrimination claim based on failure to accommodate. To survive dismissal, he had to plausibly allege that he held a bona fide religious belief conflicting with an employment requirement, informed his employer of that belief, and was disciplined for failing to comply with the requirement.

The court held that Murphy met this pleading burden. His allegations connected his refusal to receive the vaccine to his interpretation of Christian scripture, stated that he informed the defendants through his accommodation application, and alleged that he was terminated for not complying with the vaccine mandate. The court rejected the City’s argument that termination for violating a lawful employment condition could not qualify as discipline in this context. The Title VII religious-accommodation claim therefore survived the motion to dismiss as to the City.

Title VII Disparate-Impact Claim

The court dismissed Murphy’s Title VII disparate-impact claim. Murphy did not address the defendants’ argument against that claim in his opposition, and the court treated the claim as abandoned. The court also held that the claim failed independently because the complaint did not identify a comparison group or allege a disparity between people affected by the vaccine policy and similarly situated people who were not affected.

NYSHRL and NYCHRL Claims

The court denied the motion to dismiss Murphy’s failure-to-accommodate claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. It reasoned that the standards governing those claims were the same as, or more favorable to employees than, the Title VII standard, and that the same allegations sufficiently pleaded those claims.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed all claims against the NYPD and dismissed Murphy’s Title VII disparate-impact claim. Murphy’s Title VII religious-accommodation claim and his NYSHRL and NYCHRL failure-to-accommodate claims against the City were not dismissed. The Clerk was directed to terminate the NYPD from the action and terminate the motion.